Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

Whoa whoa whoa! How did we start discussing the morality behind the holocaust. I am honestly astounded.

And it was bad. It goes without even saying!

Edited by AegisP on Dec 24th 2022 at 8:28:28 AM

Going to be honest here, JAQing off about how subjective the morality of Holocaust denial is seems like a pretty gigantic red flag, and probably not the sort of line of discussion we actually need to engage with as if it comes from a sincere and reasonable place.

My impression was that the concern was that a post like this calls a moderator's judgment on bigotry-related moderation matters into question. Is that correct? There are many aspects besides than "is Holocaust denial bad?" when discussing this question, so it's not correct to reduce it down to that.

Yes, that is correct, but when the post is concerning a work that dealt with Holocaust denial and then someone else is defending the post by saying that there is no such thing as "objective morality", then it can indeed be boiled down to that. These posts are less dealing with the moderator and more with his defender, but now that that's countered, we can return to the original point - that saying that a work dealing with Holocaust denial only contains a "perceived moral wrong" is not a good look.

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Dec 24th 2022 at 11:42:31 AM

Yes. The concern is that, in response to a statement that users should have faith in the moderators to judge and take care of possible bigotry instead of taking it upon themselves, someone offered a counterexample of a moderator saying what seems to be making excuses for or downplaying the concerns of people upset about something as clear-cut bigoted as Holocaust denial.

Things like that make it much harder for us to trust the mods' judgement on what is and isn't bigoted and refrain from commenting on it among ourselves in private, just like Fighteer's comments on the previous aro/ace conversations are wont to invite "guys one of the moderators just said something acephobic" messages between the ace members of the community.

Edited by AlleyOop on Dec 24th 2022 at 11:49:12 AM

Yeah, this was a follow up to discussing troper-moderator relations and trust in the authority. A post debating the merits of a work an author uses as a vehicle to espouse Holocaust denial ideology is dangerous and stating we allow troping of a fictional work in which a character In-Universe may deny the genocide misses the mark of concern when a real life Holocaust denier is being perceived as getting leeway.

Let's recap what happened in this affair:

An alt-right troper made a work page for Stonetoss and framed it so the trope page actively avoided discussing the content of the comic. A discussion ensued upon how to handle it. I argued to de-list it for the reason that...

This isn't just "potrayal in a work." Obviously, I would never argue for any mention of the far-right, Nazis, holocaust denial, etc. to be persona non-grata. But Stonetoss is explicitly neo-nazi propaganda, admitted by the cartoonist himself. The joke there in one cartoon is literally "the Germans were the real victims of WW 2 and the Holocaust didn't happen". We can't really separate art from artist on this specific instance

This isn't just "mob rule" after "perceived moral wrong" here. There needs to be some clear cut times of taking a stand on what is and isn't morally acceptable.

One thing I appreciate on Tvtropes is the community has fought racists, white supremacists, Nazis, etc. and tends to ban them quick.

Edited by Lightysnake on Dec 24th 2022 at 9:20:52 AM

actually, at the time at least, Stonetoss denied that the comic was pro-Nazi. that was the problem. also, it drew attention from Stonetoss himself, who wanted the page to stay up in the form it was in, of course, to send him readers.

the content of the work did not make it impossible to trope. it was the circumstances around it that made it impossible to trope accurately. if Stonetoss has come out and admitted that it's Nazi propaganda since then, maybe we could have a page - that tropes it as self-admitted Nazi propaganda, including debunking the points he uses. (im not gonna fight to have it removed from the PRLC, just observing that it would be a possibility.)

The problem there is that we then move beyond merely troping the page, and start editorializing it. And however justified that may be in this case, that's not the function of a work page on this wiki. We document tropes in works, we don't comment on them, basically.

And I think we can draw a line at troping things like Nazi apologia. If we must make a rule, I'd say any work actively promoting harmful content should be avoided.

I agree with Chloe Jessica. And I remember the discussion back then.

EDIT: I hate hate hate saying this but is a bit of an overkil. We can trope stuff like The Turner Diaries and Victoria and call out their bullshit on the page. The only reason Stonetoss was cut was because the author did not admit he was a neo nazi and thus we couldnt call him one on the page.

Edited by AegisP on Dec 24th 2022 at 9:36:09 AM

There's also at least some kind of narrative to those whereas Stonetoss is just "lol, black people oppress themselves" and "lol the holocaust is fake and Jews are evil." Like, not much ambiguity there.

That's is true. There is no plot in Stonetoss. Just "bigotry is hilarious and true lol."

Could you give an example of how you would call them out without running into ROCEJ?

So if, say, some work of Nazi apologia had a narrative and a plot, it would then be okay to have a page for it?

Edited by Redmess on Dec 24th 2022 at 6:44:53 PM

I dont know... you got me.

EDIT: We have a page for Mein Kampf. Nuff said.

Edited by AegisP on Dec 24th 2022 at 9:48:25 AM

The issue with Stonetoss is it entirely consisted of uncomfortable "jokes" wanking the author's views on race, the Holocaust, etc., rather than anything tangible for narrative to actually talk about.

I mean, we have a page for Billy the Heretic, which has no plot but jokes where the punchline is always antisemitism.

But that referral to it as “the white nationalist’s Dilbert” aged poorly since now Dilbert is the white nationalist’s Dilbert.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

That's so very very sad.

If someone referred to being against Mein Kampf's content as a "perceived moral wrong, I'd also have issues.

But hitler's been dead almost 80 years

Edited by Lightysnake on Dec 24th 2022 at 9:53:00 AM

Indeed. I liked Dilbert...

I know! I'm with you Lightysnake. Also now that I think of it does Billy The Heretic have a plot? Because even if the page it claims it links to the INFAMOUS hatesite Stormfront!

EDIT: And I love the YMMV for Billy the Heretic. It holds no punches and tears the comic a new asshole.

Edited by AegisP on Dec 24th 2022 at 9:55:28 AM

<Looks it up>

...I knew Scott Adams was a Trump supporter, but I didn't realize it was this bad.

Anyway, let's rerail this back on topic.

Agreed, we're on trust of mods with the commented post being interpreted as quietly allowing for bigoted views as being acceptable. Let's not lose sight.

Should we allow links to hatesites? I don't think that would be wise.

So do we agree then that such works can be troped, but can't have any philosophizing over its content?

Right, I agree that that is unacceptable. Now I think about it, do we have a code of conduct for mods? That sounds like the sort of thing such a code would cover.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 24th 2022 at 6:58:53 PM

What's been posited is the idea of hollering mod posts when they're posting "as tropers" (without their "hat" on) and the concern amongst the tropers here has been trust in a system where mods are going to also be the ones taking in and reviewing the hollers, since it's backend and we are hoping we won't be seen as problematic for hollering them. The Stonetoss stuff was being used as an example of where tropers felt a mod went beyond boundaries and the tropers bringing it up felt uncomfortable hollering the post for fear of repercussions despite being very upset with the content of the post.